SPEECH 


OF 


DELIVERED 


IN  TIIE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENT ATIVES,  MARCH  31,  1852, 


THE  DEMOCRACY  OF  CONNECTICUT— THE  SLAVE  QUESTION. 


( 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE  OFFICE. 

1852. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/speechofmrcmingeOOinge 


> 


Jr 

/w 


326 


SPEECH. 


The  House  being  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  state  of  the  Union  (Mr.  Hibbard  in  the 
chair)  on  the  Homestead  Bill — 

Mr.  1NGERSOLL  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss 
the  subject-matter  now  before  the  committee. 

If  an  apology  were  necessary  for  the  course  of 
debate  which  I  shall  pursue,  all  will  admit  that  it 
might  be  found  in  the  line  of  safe  precedents  set 
by  older  and  more  experienced  members  who  have 
addressed  the  House  at  its  present  session. 

My  remarks  may  take  somewhat  of  a  personal 
turn,  and  if  an  apology  for  this  were  necessary, 
gentlemen  will,  I  trust,  be  disposed  to  grantit,  when 
they  consider  that  1  have  been  honored  with  a  seat 
in  this  body  without  any  public  pledges,  written 
or  oral,  and  without  a  public  address  delivered 
upon  the  great  questions  which  have  so  recently 
occupied  the  public  mind  both  North  and  South. 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  due  to  the  constituency 
I  have  the  honor  to  represent — a  constituency  1  am 
proud  to  say  unsurpassed  by  any  in  this  Union  in 
point  of  learning,  intelligence,  industry,  patriotism, 
and  morals — that  I  should  at  least  give  them  some 
acknowledgment  for  the  generous  support  with 
which  they  honored  me  on  my  election  to  this 
body. 

In  the  remarks  which  I  shall  submit,  I  shall  en¬ 
deavor  to  respond  to  what  I  believe  to  be  the  sound 
opinions  of  my  own  district  and  State  in  regard  to 
that  “  vexed  question”  which  has  for  years  past 
so  unhappily  produced  animosities  and  heart-burn¬ 
ings  between  the  two  great  divisions  of  our  com¬ 
mon  country,  and  which  I  sincerely  believe  has 
recently  brought  this  Union  upon  the  verge  of  dis¬ 
solution. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  Democratic  State  Conven¬ 
tion  of  Connecticut,  which  met  recently  at  New 
Haven,  among  other  resolutions,  adopted  the  fol¬ 
lowing: 

“Resolved,  That  the  principle  of  a  strict  construction  of 
the  powers  granted  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  | 
forms  a  fundamental  part  of  tire  creed  of  the  American  , 
Democracy,  and  that  the  application  of  this  radical  princi-  | 


pie  will  maintain  in  their  integrity  the  rights  of  the  States, 
will  furnish  the  most  effectual  antidote  against  the  central¬ 
izing  tendencies  of  the  Federal  Government,  and  will  pre¬ 
serve  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  making  a  confed¬ 
eracy  of  States  equal  to  the  task  of  bearing  peaceable  sway 
over  the  North  American  continent. 

“Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  of  this  country  is 
essentially,  from  its  principles  and  its  component  elements, 
the  true  Union  party — abstaining  from  the  exercise  of  doubt¬ 
ful  powers  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government,  and  up¬ 
holding  the  rights  of  the  States,  it  has  preserved  the  integrity 
of  our  political  institutions;  that  it  has  maintained  the 
honor,  developed  the  power,  extended  the  area,  and  pro¬ 
moted  the  prosperity  of  the  Republic. 

“ Resolved ,  That  the  Democracy  of  Connecticut,  acting 
through  their  State  Conventions,  have  never,  amid  all  the 
excitement  which  has  prevailed  for  some  years  past,  given 
the  slightest  aid  or  comfort  to  sectional  animosity  ;  and  that 
they  have  passed  no  resolution  at  war  with  the  creed  of  the 
National  Democracy ;  and  that,  having  last  year  fully  ex¬ 
pressed  their  acquiescence  in  the  compromise  measures  of 
Congress,  they  can  now  proudly  point  to  their  official  pro¬ 
ceedings,  for  a  series  of  years,  as  unstained  by  fanaticism, 
and  embracing  principles  as  broad  as  the  Union. 

“.Resolved, That  we  will  cheerfully  abide  by  the  decision 
of  the  Democratic  Convention  which  is  to  meet  in  Balti¬ 
more  in  June  next;  and  that,  from  whatever  quarter  of  the 
Union  the  nominee  may  be  selected,  we  pledge  him  in  ad¬ 
vance  the  entire  and  hearty  support  of  the  Connecticut 
Democracy.” 

Every  word  of  these  resolutions  T  subscribe  to, 

;  and  am  prepared  todefend,and  I  shall  make  them 
a  sort  of  text  for  what  may  follow  from  my  lips 
to-day. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss 
the  abstract  question  of  slavery,  much  less  to  af¬ 
firm  that  I  am  in  favor  of  while  or  black  slavery, 
or  to  stand  forth  as  its  champion;  it  is  a  matter 
'j  foreign  to  the  issue  which  I  propose  to  make. 

!  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  I  should  discuss  the  mere 
[  question  of  African  slavery  as  it  existed  before 
|  the  Revolution,  while  we  were  colonies;  as  it  ex¬ 
isted  in  the  States  after  we  formed  our  Constitu¬ 
tion,  or  as  it  exists  now  in  the  South.  If  it  is  a 
I  curse,  as  some  men  call  it,  it  is  one  which  falls 
j  upon  the  slaveholder,  and  for  which  we  of  the 
North  are  in  no  way  accountable,  and  which 
should  draw  from  us  regret  at  its  existence,  and 
sympathy  rather  than  rebuke,  towards  the  descend¬ 
ants  of  those  who  with  our  forefathers  fought 


4 


shoulder  to  shoulder  for  that  Declaration  which 
made  us  free,  and  for  that  Constitution  which 
secured  to  us  freedom.  It  is  an  evil,  says  the  phi¬ 
lanthropist.  Admit  it — what  then?  Look  into  our 
social  system,  and  behold  evil  surrounding  us  on 
every  side.  Why,  sir,  the  very  life  which  men 
hold  so  dear,  is  made  up  of  evils  and  blessings — 
there  are  the  hopes  of  youth  blasted — the  energies 
of  manhood  destroyed — the  sorrows  and  decrepi¬ 
tude  of  old  age — these,  with  the  good  men  enjoy, 
makes  up  the  sum  total  in  the  reckoning  of  human 
life;  and  it  is  the  very  existence  of  evil  which 
makes  man  prize  the  good  which  falls  to  him. 
And  if  this  rule  holds  true  in  the  social,  how  much 
more  should  we  look  for  it  in  the  political,  which 
owes  all  it  possesses  to  the  social  state?  Who  will 
tell  me  of  a  political  State  that  has  existed  from  the 
earliest  dawn  of  government,  which  has  been  free 
from  evils?  The  philanthropist  may,  with  the 
lantern  of  Diogenes,  look  for  it,  but  in  vain. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  watched  the  slavery  agi¬ 
tation,  which  has  been  and  is  so  rife  in  our  midst, 
with  much  solicitude.  A  child  of  common  under¬ 
standing  may  see  where  it  is  tending,  and  the 
point  at  which  it  will  arrive,  unless  “  the  sober, 
second  thought  ”  of  the  North  nips  it  now  in  its 
full-grown  bud. 

I  have  no  sympathy  with  abolition  agitation,  or 
what,  in  the  parlance  of  the  Buffalo  Convention, 
goes  by  the  name  of  free- soil  agitation;  and  1  be¬ 
lieve  the  intelligent  people  whom  I  represent  agree 
with  me  in  the  views  I  entertain  of  its  effects.  I 
stand  not  here  to  arraign  the  motives  of  men.  much 
less  to  question  the  honest  intentions  of  those, 
many  of  them,  at  least,  who  uphold  politicians 
in  the  war  they  are  covertly  making  upon  the  in¬ 
stitutions  and  the  peace  of  the  country.  But  when 
the  Democracy  of  the  North,  in  their  efforts  to 
preserve  inviolate  the  constitutional  rights  of  the 
States,  are  told  here,  as  we  were  the  other  day 
by  the  honorable  member  from  Massachusetts, 
[Mr.  Rantoul,]  that  they  are  “  eating  Southern 
dirt,”  I  take  this  occasion  to  say,  that  my  democ¬ 
racy  teaches  me  no  fellowship, politically,  with  agi¬ 
tators  who  scarcely  merit  the  rebuke  of  an  offend¬ 
ed  people,  which,  in  times  gone  by,  fell  upon  the 
head  of  Arnold,  and  the  whiter  head  of  Aaron  Burr. 

And  let  us  stop  here  and  see  what  position  the 
honorable  member  from  Massachusetts,  who  ac¬ 
cuses  the  Northern  Democracy  of  eating  “  South¬ 
ern  dirt,”  himself  has  occupied.  It  was  in  the 
year  1838,  that  Mr.  Rantoul  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
effect,  if  1  am  right,  that  slavery  ought  to  be  abol¬ 
ished  by  Congress  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
and  forbidden  in  the  Territories,  and  that  Con¬ 
gress  had  full  power  to  do  so.  I  have  not  his  let¬ 
ter  by  me,  but  I  think  I  cannot  be  mistaken  about, 
the  fact. 

In  1840,  1844,  and  1848,  the  honorable  member 
pretended  to  act  with  the  political  party  which, by 
resolves,  deprecated  all  interference  of  the  Aboli¬ 
tionists;  and,  at  the  Democratic  State  Convention 
of  Massachusetts,  in  1848,  he  was  one  of  a  com¬ 
mittee  which  reported  a  resolution  which  reads  as 
follows: 


“  Resoloed,  That  tills  convention  is  opposed  to  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  any  jurisdiction,  I)}7  Congress,  upon  the  matter  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories.” 


He  also  went  with  the  party  which  favored  the 
annexation  of  Texas  to  this  Union,  and  the  Mex¬ 
ican  war.  He  now  says — if  I  understand  his  po¬ 


sition — that  he  always  continued  in  the  belief  of 
the  doctrines  of  his  letter  of  1838,  and  that  he  did 
not  believe  a  word  of  the  resolve  of  1848,  which 
he  aided  in  reporting,  or  which,  at  all  events,  went 
to  the  country  under  his  sanction. 

The  question  now  is,  whether  this  avowal  helps 
his  political  character  for  sincerity  ?  In  May, 
1851,  at  a  mass  Democratic  convention,  called  in 
his  district,  and  “  called,”  to  use  his  own  language 
before  that  convention,  as  reported  in  the  “  Com¬ 
monwealth”  of  April  4,  1851,  “  as  I  suppose  at 
my  suggestion;”  and  six  months  (bear  in  mind)  after 
the  fugitive  slave  law  had  passed  Congress,  and  af¬ 
ter  he  had  gone  through  repeated  unsuccessful  trials 
for  an  election  to  this  body,  he  came  out  against 
the  constitutionality  of  the  fugitive  slave  law  ! 

Now,  why,  if  the  honorable  member  did  not 
believe  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Democratic  party, 
in  regard  to  slavery,  were,  in  1848,  sound,  did  he 
not  then  come  out  and  oppose  them,  instead  of 
remaining  quiet  and  permitting  resolutions,  the 
doctrines  of  which  he  did  not  believe  in,  to  go 
forth  to  the  country  indorsed  by  his  name  ?  And 
is  it  for  the  gentleman  now  to  taunt  me,  and  those 
who  think  with  me,  with  “  eating  Southern  dirt?” 
But  I  have  digressed  too  much.  I  leave  it  to  the 
gentleman  to  satisfy,  if  he  can,  the  world,  and  par¬ 
ticularly  the  party  who  loved,  in  other  days,  to 
honor  what  they  then  believed  to  be  his  principles 
and  his  talents,  in  regard  to  his  course.  He  has 
not  yet  been  able  to  satisfy  me. 

Sir,  the  efforts  of  the  class  of  politicians  just 
spoken  of  point  to  but  one  issue,  and  that  the  rule 
or  ruin  of  this  Union;  and  with  such  an  issue  be¬ 
fore  me,  shall  I  hesitate  where  to  stand?  No,  sir. 
Give  me  the  Union  as  it  is,  rather  than  what  goes 
by  the  name  of  liberty,  with  anarchy  and  civil 
war  the  result.  Give  me  the  “  E  Pluribus  Unum” 
which  I  now  live  under,  rather  than  the  “  Liberty, 
Equality,  and  Fraternity”  of  a  licentious  French 
Republic. 

I  speak  as  a  Northern — a  Connecticut  man; 
proud  of  my  State,  which  sent  more  of  her  sons  to 
the  battle-field  of  the  Revolution  than  any  other 
State,  in  proportion  to  her  population;  proud  of 
her  institutions  of  learning,  her  common  schools, 
her  quiet  abodes  of  religion,  of  industry,  and  of 
thrift;  and  proud  of  her  adventurous  citizens, 
whose  hardy  enterprise  leads  them  to  the  four 
quarters  of  the  globe;  and  I  say  that  the  “  land  of 
steady  habits  ”  loves  too  much  the  Union  as  it  is, 
and  she  and  the  whole  North  are  indebted  too  much 
to  it  for  her  and  their  prosperity  ever  to  counte¬ 
nance  treason  against  it. 

But,  sir,  I  know  I  may  be  met  herewith  the  Cry 
of  these  agitators,  that  there  is  no  danger  of  dis¬ 
solution; — it  is  a  part  of  the  policy  of  these  senti¬ 
nels  “on  the  watch-tower  of  freedom,”  while  they 
apply  the  torch,  to  cry,  “All’s  well;”  but  who, 
sir,  that  has  listened  to  the  facts  which  have  come 
out  in  the  debates  upon  this  floor,  at  this  session, 
of  the  honorable  members  from  Mississippi,  can 
for  a  moment  doubt  it?  Why,  sir,  the  very  fact 
that  men  talk  of  secession,  is  enough  to  rouse  the 
patriot  to  his  sense  of  duty — is  sufficient  to  warn 
us  of  the  volcano  which  is  under  our  feet.  Let 
us  pause  fora  moment,  and  see  by  contrast  where 
we  stand.  During  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain, 
a  convention  of  the  New  England  States  met  at 
Hartford — that  convention,  it  is  well  known,  sat 
with  closed  doors,  and  the  seal  of  secrecy  was  put 


« 


5 


upon  its  members.  It  was,  in  my  opinion,  as 
unworthy  a  conclave  as  ever  met  together;  anil  I 
blush  for  my  native  State,  that  it  was  ever  permit¬ 
ted  to  hold  its  sittings  within  the  borders  of  Con¬ 
necticut.  What  was  the  object  of  that  conven¬ 
tion?  Nothing  was  positively  known  at  the  time, 
but  suspicion — that  suspicion  which,  as  Randolph 
once  said  on  a  memorable  occasion,  is  often  “  more 
than  equal  to  the  most  damning  proof,”  proclaimed 
that  it  met  to  take  measures  for  the  secession  of 
the  New  England  States  from  the  Union.  You 
know,  sir,  how  the  public  mind  received  this  start¬ 
ling  news,  and  the  bitter  and  well-merited  indig¬ 
nation  which  went  up  from  all  parts  of  the  Union 
against  this  treasonable  assemblage.  Sir,  the  re¬ 
buke  of  an  insulted  people  followed  its  members 
to  their  graves,  not  one  of  whom  hardly  dared 
present  himself  after  the  war  to  the  people  for  their 
suffrages.  Suppose,  sir,  that  at  that  time,  any 
one  had  predicted  that  in  less  than  a  half  century 
secession  would  be  openly  advocated :  who  doubts 
but  that  he  would  have  been  considered,  if  not  a 
traitor  to  his  country,  at  least  a  fit  subject  for  the 
lunatic  asylum? 

But  what  are  we  now  witness  to  in  this  age  of 
reason  and  progress  in  government?  Why,  sir, 
when,  above  all  other  times  and  seasons,  weshould 
prize  this  Union  of  ours,  whose  aegis  covers  the 
Atlantic  and  the  Pacific  shores — whose  prosperity 
is  a  wonder  even  to  ourselves — whose  flag  is  mis¬ 
tress  of  the  sea,  and  under  whose  ample  folds  the 
oppressed  of  every  nation  are  taking  refuge,  we 
see  conventions  openly  called ,  presses  openly  advo¬ 
cating,  and  orators  proclaiming  from  the  house¬ 
tops — “secession,”  and  “dissolution;”  and  the 
people  discussing  that,  which  to  think  of,  even  at 
the  time  just  alluded  to,  the  public  mind  rose  as 
one  man  to  rebuke. 

And  yet  we  are  told  that  there  is  no  danger  in 
all  this.  Surely 

“  It  is  the  very  error  of  the  moon; 

She  comes  more  near  the  earth  than  she  was  wont, 

And  makes  men  mad.” 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  secession  of  a  sovereign 
State  from  this  Union  is  by  some  persons  consid¬ 
ered  a  very  easy  act  to  perform,  where  there  is  a 
will  (and  God  grant  it  may  never  arise)  to  do  it. 
Whether  it  is  a  constitutional  or  revolutionary 
right  which  must  be  exercised,  is  a  question  which 
I  have  no  time  to  discuss  here.  I  prefer  to  look  at 
the  practical  bearing  of  the  result,  should  the  issue 
of  secession  ever  be  made.  Suppose  a  State  de¬ 
termines  upon  secession,  what  power  (I  speak  not 
of  “  right”)  of  the  Federal  Government,  under  the 
Constitution,  will  force  it  to  remain  in  the  Confed¬ 
eracy  ?  Has  it  any  power?  In  theory,  even,  it  is 
questionable  to  some  minds,  while  in  a  practical 
point  of  view  it  is  powerless.  What!  a  Govern¬ 
ment  formed  upon  a  compact  and  a  compromise, 
and  founded  upon  the  will  and  affection  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  governed,  and  deriving  all  its  strength  from  the 
popular  voice,  compelling  the  people  of  a  sover¬ 
eign  State,  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  to  remain  in 
a  Union  whose  only  bond  is  good  will  and  affec¬ 
tion.  The  idea  is  at  war  with  every  principle  of 
our  republican  Government.  But  if  it  is  carried 
out,  what  then  ?  Tell  me  the  worth  of  that  State 
to  this  Union  which  is  kept  to  us  only  by  force 
of  powder  and  ball.  Let  a  State  determine  upon 
secession,  and  while  the  strong  arm  of  Federal 
authority  cannot  lorce  it  to  return  to  its  place  in 


the  friendly  galaxy  of  stars  which  compose  the 
Union,  it  will  be  no  easy  undertaking  to  persuade 
it  back  to  the  point  it  before  occupied  by  the  side 
of  its  sister  States  in  the  Confederacy. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  people  of  the  North  have 
not,  until  of  late,  aroused  themselves  to  a  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  ruin  which  has  threatened  the  Union. 
Immersed  in  business,  and  bent  on  the  pursuits  of 
honest  gain,  they  have  been  unmindful  of  the 
danger  which  has  surrounded  them;  while  design¬ 
ing  men  and  politicians,  with  selfish  ends,  have 
been  sporting  with  the  institutions  of  the  country, 
like  a  child  with  a  bauble.  The  political  question 
of  slavery  in  the  States  or  in  the  Territories,  the 
Federal  Government  has  nothing,  in  my  opinion, 
to  do  with.  If  I,  finding  the  culture  of  tobacco 
unprofitable,  choose  to  plant  my  field  with  corn,  I 
have  no  right  to  destroy  my  neighbor’s  field,  or 
abuse  him,  because  he  continues  to  plant  a  weed 
which,  in  my  opinion,  forced  upon  me  hymyown 
experience,  is  destroying  his  land,  and  which,  in 
its  effects,  has  an  injurious  influence  upon  the 
health  of  the  community  around  us.  No  more 
right  has  the  State  of  Connecticut  to  say  to  South 
Carolina,  Your  slave  labor  is  unprofitable;  we  have 
found  it  so,  therefore  you  must  abolish  it.  If  I 
and  my  friend  from  Virginia  are  owners  of  a  tract 
of  land,  which  he  and  I  contributed  to  purchase, 
I  have  no  exclusive  right  to  tell  him  how  that  land 
shall  be  cultivated  or  managed,  nor  has  he  that 
right  over  me;  and  so  it  is  with  the  Territories 
belonging  to  this  Government — it  is  not  in  the 
power  of  the  Federal  Government  to  say  that  Con¬ 
necticut  may  go  into  them  with  her  factory  mills, 
and  that  Virginia  cannot  enter  them  with  her  prop¬ 
erty. 

Mr.  Chairman,  whoever  has  listened,  upon  this 
floor  or  elsewhere,  to  the  speeches  of  those  gentle¬ 
men  who  claim  to  be  the  exclusive  friends  of  what 
they  term  the  anti-slave  influence  in  this  country, 
must  have  remarked  the  frequent  expressions  of 
“liberty,”  and  “humanity,”  with  which  they 
abound,  and  the  taunts  of  “African  oppression,” 
which  is  so  freely  lavished  upon  the  ears  of  those 
whose  notions  of  the  institutions  of  this  Govern¬ 
ment  do  not  correspond  with  their  own;  as  if  these 
gentlemen  were  the  only  pure-minded  men  in  the 
land,  and  reflected  the  sound  views  always  held 
upon  the  slavery  question  at  the  North. 

Now,  sir,  I  believe  I  am  as  good  a  friend  to  lib¬ 
erty  and  humanity  as  the  most  violent  Abolitionist 
or  Free-Soiler  in  this  Hall  of  Congress;  and  I 
further  believe  that  the  illustrious  men  of  revolu¬ 
tionary  times,  who  helped  to  frame  our  Constitu¬ 
tion,  had  as  strict  notions  of  the  “  rights  of  man,” 
as  any  of  its  advocates  in  this  our  day  and  genera¬ 
tion. 

It  is  curious  to  look  into  the  history  of  the  States 
of  this  Confederacy,  and  examine  the  positions 
which  they  have  occupied  in  regard  to  this  matter 
of  slavery.  Let  us  see  how  New  England  has  at 
times  stood. 

It  is  well  known,  sir,  that  in  the  Convention 
which  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
the  subject  of  slavery  and  the  slave  trade  was  a 
prominent  topic  of  debate.  Up  to  this  time  the 
States  had  a  right  to  import  slaves  from  Africa, 
or  from  any  part  of  the  globe.  This  subject  was 
referred  in  the  Convention  to  a  committee  to  report 
upon,  and  that  committee  reported  in  favor  of 
stopping  the  slave  trade  after  the  year  1800.  The 


i 


6 


South  were  not  satisfied  with  the  restriction  pro¬ 
posed,  and  the  subject  was  again  referred  back  to 
the  committee  who  reported  the  limit  of  1800,  and 
the  committee  finally  reported  to  extend  the  time 
to  the  year  1808.  This  report  was  accepted,  and 
the  result  became  a  part  of  the  Constitution.  Now, 
let  gentlemen  look  at  the  record  of  the  Convention, 
and  see  what  States  voted  to  extend  the  duration 
of  the  slave  trade,  from  the  time  originally  reported 
to  the  convention.  What  do  we  find,  sir  ?  Why, 
that  the  only  New  England  States  then  represented 
in  the  Convention — Connecticut,  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  and  Massachusetts — voted  to  extend  the  du¬ 
ration  of  this  great  evil  while  Virginia,  a  slave 
State,  and  the  States  about  Virginia,  voted  in  the 
negative.  Yes,  sir;  and  whom  do  we  find  from 
Connecticut,  as  members  of  that  Convention  ?  1 

will  mention  but  two  of  them — men  of  pure  hearts, 
and  patriots  in  the  times  which  tried  men’s  souls — 
the  one,  Roger  Sherman,  the  signer  of  the  Decla¬ 
ration  of  Independence,  and  the  other  Oliver  Ells¬ 
worth,  afterwards  Chief  Justice  of  the  United 
States.  And  these  are  the  men  who,  had  they 
lived  in  this  our  day,  would  probably  have  been 
told  by  the  honorable  member  from  Ohio,  [Mr. 
Giddixgs,]  not  now  in  his  seat,  that  they  were 
“  following  the  crack  of  the  slave-drivers’ whips,” 
and  such  like  generous  expressions,  so  freely  used 
by  that  honorable  gentleman  during  this  session. 
Now,  sir,  these  illustrious  patriots  did  not  like 
slavery  per  se  any  more  than  do  the  noisy  declaim- 
ers  of  abolition  on  this  floor;  but  they  were  men 
who  loved  their  country  more  than  injustice,  and 
they  looked  at  this  slavery  question  like  practical, 
sensible  men,  with  the  good  of  the  Union  and 
the  prosperity  of  New  England  at  heart. 

Again:  in  this  same  Convention,  when  it  was 
moved  to  insert  that  provision  in  the  Constitution, 
which  provides  for  the  delivery  of  fugitives  from 
service,  New  England  voted  with  the  same  una¬ 
nimity  as  before  in  favor  of  the  provision. 

Sir,  it  is  almost  unaccountable  how  men,  claim¬ 
ing  to  be  Americans,  in  view  of  the  dangers  which 
threatened  the  country  during  those  debates,  with 
the  history  of  that  Convention-  before  them,  will 
persist  in  this  crusade  they  are  making  upon  the 
Union  and  the  rights  of  the  States. 

And  what  ally  have  these  agitators  in  the  war 
they  are  waging  upon  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
the  country? 

England,  the  enemy,  the  inveterate  enemy  of 
America  and  everything  American.  England, 
who  never  yet  acted  without  a  motive  of  self-ag¬ 
grandizement,  and  who  did  not  abolish  slavery  in 
her  W est  India  colonies  till  she  foresaw  that  those 
colonies  were  destined  to  languish,  while  her  East 
India  possessions,  bringing  golden  treasures  to  her 
vaults,  were  the  points  to  which  her  own  energies 
should  be  exerted;  and  now  we  witness  a  member 
of  the  British  Parliament  landing  upon  our  shores 
to  lecture  us  upon  the  horrors  of  slavery,  and  in-  I 
citing  our  citizens  to  oppose  the  laws  of  this  Union. 
And  who  is  this  worthy  pioneer  of  modern  Eng-  : 
lish  philanthropy  ? — I  refer  to  the  notorious  George 
Thompson,  the  Representative  of  the  Tower  Ham¬ 
lets  of  the  city  of  London.  I  invite  gentlemen  to 
look  into  the  condition  of  the  distinct  this  man 
represents  in  the  English  Parliament. 

In  the  summer  of  1851,  some  Americans  were 
permitted,  under  the  safe-conduct  of  a  posse  of  her 
Majesty’s  police  officers  of  the  city  of  London,  to  | 


take  a  look  into  the  situation  of  the  people  they 
understood  this  agitator  represented  in  the  Eng¬ 
lish  House  of  Commons.  The  House  will  pardon 
me,  if  I  read  to  them  a  faithful  description  of  one 
or  two  scenes  of  vice  and  misery  they  witnessed, 
almost  under  the  battlements  of  the  Tower  of 
London  itself,  and  of  which  notes  were  taken  in 
the  day  and  time  of  it,  and  for  the  truth  of  them 
I  can  vouch: 

“  We  now  threaded  our  way  through  a  long,  dark  street,  or 
alley,  and  of  a  sudden  found  ourselves  in  a  dingy  hall,  filled 
with  the  fumes  of  tobacco,  beer,  and  gin,  and  where  some 
sixty  persons  were  collected,  a  portion  sitting  on  benches 
around  the  room,  smoking  pipes  and  drinking,  while  the 
greater  portion  were  shuffling  in  the  dance,  to  the  music  of  an 
old  blind  fiddler  in  the  corner.  There  were  a  dozen,  or  more, 
women,  and  as  many  children,  in  the  motley  crew.  ‘  Do 
you  know  whpre  you  are  ?’  asked  the  police  guide.  ‘  No,’ 
was  the  reply.  ‘  Surrounded  (he  continued)  by  pickpockets 
and  thieves  !  and  look,  you  see  that  man  and  the  girl  whose 
hair  is  cropped  ?  They  are  but  recently  from  Newgate.’ 

“  We  left  this  place  to  go  to  another  of  the  same  kind,  but 
worse  than  the  former.  We  passed  through  dark  and 
dreary  lanes,  the  stillness  of  death  only  broken  by  the  occa¬ 
sional  churl  or  bark  of  a  dog,  or  the  oaths  of  the  drunken 
inmates  of  the  dens,  with  windows  and  doorsall  barred  and 
bolted,  and  the  light  shut  up  within.  We  passed  by,  and 
we  were  now  in  the  worst  part  of  London !  in  a  city  of 
thieves  and  vagabonds,  with  hardly  an  honest  being,  except 
policemen,  within  sound  of  a  pistol !  We  entered  a  low, 
arched  gateway,  and  at  its  terminus  stopped.  The  officer 
rapped  at  the  door;  at  last  it  was  opened,  and  such  a 
scene !  In  a  long,  dimly-lighted,  smoke-begrimed  room, 
with  rafters  and  a  roof  once  whitewashed,  but  now  covered 
with  smoke  and  dirt,  were  some  sevanty  men,  women,  and 
children,  most  of  them  returned  convicts  from  Botany  Bay. 
As  the  policemen  entered,  they  stood  aghast,  and  they  grad¬ 
ually  receded  and  crouched  in  the  corners  and  along  the 
wall,  as  the  policemen  came  amongst  them.  The  officers 
told  them  that  they  came  merely  on  a  visit,  to  conduct  the 
strangers  who  accompanied  them,  and  that  they  had  noth¬ 
ing  to  fear.  They  gradually  regained  their  composure,  and 
after  awhile  got  up  a  sparring-match,  and  afterwards  a 
dance,  in  which  a  young  girl  of  fourteen  years,  the  daughter 
of  a  noted  burglar,  and  the  pet  of  this  den,  danced  the  horn¬ 
pipe.  Among  this  motley  crew,  we  had  pointed  out  to  us 
thieves,  burglars,  and  one  murderer,  who,  but  six  months 
before,  had  escaped  the  gallows  through  some  technical  point 
which  came  up  on  his  trial.  From  here  we  went  to  other 
dens  less  notorious,  but  bad  enough,  and  to  dancing  saloons 
filled  with  drunken  sailors  and  women,  many  of  them  un¬ 
able  to  stand.  And  now  we  started  for  the  neighborhood  of 
the  ‘Tower,’  the  poor  beggar’s  home,  and  the  abode  of 
misery,  poverty,  and  degradation.  We  visited  several 
places  where  for  a  half  penny  a  night  the  poverty-stricken, 
who  by  day  hang  about  the  London  wharves,  may  find  a 
place  to  lav  their  heads  ;  and  what  a  scene  was  before  us 
as  the  policeman  opened  the  doors  of  these  wretched  abodes, 
and  turned  his  dark-lantern  round  that  its  rays  might  light 
up  the  floor  upon  which  we  now  «tood  !  There  they  lay, 
upon  dirty  straw  and  paper-shavings,  covering  the  floor,  in 
small  rooms,  with  hardly  what  might  be  termed  a  window, 
to  let  in  a  breath  of  air  or  the  light  of  heaven — men,  women, 
and  children  all  huddled  like  swine  together,  with  hardly 
rags  to  cover  them,  to  the  number  of  thirty  and  forty  in  a 
room !” 

And  this,  sir,  is  the  district,  represented  by  the 
individual  who  joins  hand  in  hand  with  Garrison 
and  his  associates,  in  exclamations  of  holy  hor¬ 
ror  at  the  existence  of  an  institution  in  this  coun¬ 
try,  which  was  forced  upon  us,  against  the  wishes 
of  the  colonists,  and  which  the  States  alone,  where 
slavery  exists,  can,  under  the  Constitution,  regu¬ 
late. 

Look  at  the  present  condition  of  Ireland,  brought 
to  its  present  state  by  English  legislation,  and 
British  oppression.  Behold  a  country,  intended 
by  God  for  the  happiness  of  the  most  virtuous 
people  upon  the  globe,  brought  by  English  laws 
and  English  neglect,  to  a  poverty  which  steeps 
poor  humanity  to  its  very  lips  !  Look  to  Eng¬ 
land !  behold  her,  proud  and  arrogant,  filled  with 


7 


self-conceit;  her  East  India  possessions  and  the 
far-distant  colony  of  Australia  bringing  to  her 
lap  the  treasures  of  their  store;  while  Ireland, 
who  gave  to  her  a  general,  the  conqueror  of  Na- 
oleon,  sits  knocking  at  her  doors,  crying  for 
read, and  exhibiting  her  children  dying  and  dead 
from  hunger. 

Let  me  read  to  the  House  one  or  two,  among 
many  scenes,  from  an  eye-witness,  in  the  summer 
of  1849,  in  that  ill-fated  isle: 

“  Between  Cork  and  Killarney,  there  was  little  to  glad 
the  eye  or  the  heart — the  country  itself,  intended  for  the 
home  of  industry  and  thrift,  is  now  in  progress  of  rapid 
decay.  Miserable  bog-huts  line  the  road  side — huts  with 
no  windows,  and  where  the  swine  and  his  owner  have  an 
equal  home.  The  people  are  the  most  poverty-stricken 
beings  ever  looked  upon — covered  with  rags,  pale,  and 
emaciated,  they  line  the  road-side,  casting  an  imploring  eye 
to  all  who  pass  by.  Some  of  the  huts  were  of  turf  and 
mud,  and  hardly  high  enough  to  enable  a  man  to  sit  upright 
in  them.” 

Again : 

“We  stopped  at  the  little  town  of  Sardeen,  on  the  banks 
of  the  Shannon,  and  we  visited  two  or  three  huts,  where  the 
inmates  were  boiling  sea  weed  for  their  dinners;  and  this, 
we  were  informed,  was  all  they  had  had  to  live  upon  for 
weeks.” 

Again  : 

“  We  had  now  arrived  in  the  county  of  Galway.  Words 
can  give  you  but  a  faint  idea  of  the  misery  which  we  saw 
upon  every  side.  All  along  the  road  we  passed  roofless 
cottages,  or  cabins,  where  the  landlord  had  burnt  the  roofs 
over  the  heads  of  his  poverty-stricken  tenants,  in  order  to 
force  them  to  leave  the  land !  and  near  by  each  ruin  we 
saw  the  poor  tenants  occupying  kennels  dug  out  of  the  road¬ 
side— the  poor  creatures,  as  they  crawled  out  to  beg  a  penny 
of  the  traveler,  had  hardly  rags  enough  to  cover  them ;  and 
several  boys  were  in  a  complete  state  of  nudity.  One 
woman  we  met  told  us  that  she  had  left  six  children  starving 
in  her  cabin,  and  had  then  walked  ten  miles  in  quest  of 
something  for  her  and  her  little  ones  to  eat;  and  that  she 
had  not  tasted  a  morsel  for  the  last  twenty-four  hours. 

“  The  most  frightful  picture  in  this  scene,  where  all  was 
desolation,  was  that  of  a  little  girl  of  about  twelve  years. 
She  came  up  to  us,  leading  a  little  brother,  both  worn  by 
hunger  to  skeletons.  They  were  so  weak  from  starvation 
that  they  could  hardly  move  their  limbs !  These  children 
had,  the  week  before,  lost  both  father  and  mother  from 
hunger,  and  the  little  boy  arid  girl  lived  in  the  hut  near  by. 
We  visited  this  hut,  and  found  nothing  in  it  but  an  iron 
kettle,  and  some  rushes  which  the  little  ones  had  gathered 
by  the  road  side  to  sleep  upon.” 

Again: 

“  Near  the  town  ofClifden,  we  saw  a  poor  boy,  of  about 
fifteen  years  of  age,  lying  in  the  gutter  of  the  road,  appa¬ 
rently  in  a  dying  state.  We  stopped,  and  asked  him  what 
was  the  matter  ?  He  faintly  replied,  ‘  Hunger.’ 

“  Passing  along  the  road,  we  saw  smoke  issuing  from  a 
hole  in  a  bank  on  the  side  of  the  road.  We  stopped,  and 
out  of  the  hole  creeped  a  child — then  another,  and  then  the 
motner,  with  an  infant  in  her  arms.  The  woman  told  us 
that  her  husband  had  left  her  two  weeks  before  in  quest  of 
food . 

“Further  on,  we  passed  another  of  these  burrows.  A 
man  lived  there  with  his  four  children.  He  approached  us 
with,  1  for  God’s  sake,  give  us  something  to  eat.  I  and  my 
little  ones  are  dying.’  ” 

Oh,  there  is  enough  in  all  this  to  sicken  the 
heart  of  everything  of  English  influence  in  the 
affairs  of  this  country. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  thus  given,  in  as  concise 
form  as  possible,  my  views  of  what  I  believe  to 
be  the  feelings  of  the  people  of  my  district  upon 


the  all-absorbing  question  of  slavery  in  the  States 
and  Territories  of  this  Union. 

Upon  the  question  of  the  compromise,  I  believe 
the  people  of  Connecticut  to  be  sound,  and  that 
they  will  abide  by  it  in  good  faith,  and  with  an 
honest  determination  to  carry  out  all  the  provis¬ 
ions  of  its  several  parts.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can 
better  describe  the  feelings  of  the  people  of  Con¬ 
necticut  in  regard  to  it,  and  in  opposition  to  all 
slavery  agitation,  than  by  reading  the  following 
call  for  a  public  meeting  in  New  Haven,  signed 
by  about  one  thousand  names,  comprising  the 
most  worthy  citizens  of  the  place,  of  all  profes¬ 
sions  and  callings,  during  the  agitation  consequent 
upon  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures, 
in  December  a  twelvemonth  since.  It  is  as  fol¬ 
lows: 

“  The  undersigned,  believing  that  any  alteration  of  the 
compromise  measures  adopted  at  the  last  session  of  Con¬ 
gress  is  not  only  inexpedient,  but  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
good  citizen  of  this  Republic  to  support  and  vindicate  the 
same,  do  therefore  recommend  that  a  public  meeting  of  the 
citizens  of  this  place,  without  distinction  of  party,  be  con¬ 
vened,  to  express  our  united  determination  that  the  same 
shall  be  executed  to  their  fullest  extent,  and  our  united  oppo¬ 
sition  to  any  further  agitation  of  the  subject,  or  the  subject 
of  slavery  in  any  form.” 

And  now,  sir,  thanking  the  House  for  its  atten¬ 
tion  to  these  imperfect  remarks  of  mine,  I  will 
conclude  by  quoting  the  eloquent  and  patriotic 
language  of  a  venerable  speaker  at  that  meeting — 
one  of  the  most  learned  divines  of  New  England, 
and  Professor  of  Divinity  in  that  old  Institution, 
which  educated  a  Calhoun,  and  others  of  both  the 
North  and  the  South’s  best  sons.  1  refer  to  the 
learned  Dr.  Nathaniel  W.  Taylor,  Professor  of 
Theology  in  Yale  College: 

“  Thus  far  we  have  passed  through  the  storm  ;  I  hope  it 
is  over ;  I  am  afraid  it  is  not;  I  am  afraid  there  are  evils 
yet  to  come — but  I  think  the  prospect  brightens.  I  do  think 
that  we  have  reason  to  believe  that,  though  surrounded 
with  distracting  causes  and  influences,  the  people  are  com¬ 
ing  to  right  views,  and  that  here  we  have  indications  that 
the  God  of  our  fathers  cares  for  us.  He  is,  I  trust,  restrain¬ 
ing  the  madness  of  the  people,  and  that  in  his  own  good 
time,  amid  the  roaring  of  the  tempest,  he  will  say  to  the 
winds,  ‘  Cease.’  and  to  the  waves,  ‘  Be  still.’  Stand,  then, 
my  fellow-citizens,  by  law!  stand  by  the  Constitution  of 
our  country;  that  Constitution — why,  sir,  like  the  atmos¬ 
phere  around  us,  it  blesses  us  every  breath  we  draw  ;  we 
wake,  we  sleep,  we  talk,  we  think,  we  hope,  we  rejoice 
every  moment  under  its  influence.  Our  commerce  that 
floats  on  every  sea,  our  trade  in  city  and  in  country,  the 
harvests  that  wave  in  our  (ields,  the  cattle  on  our  thousand 
hills,  aye,  sir,  every  flower  that  blooms  in  our  garden,  and 
every  bird  that  sings  in  these  green  trees,  all,  all  are  under 
the  guardianship  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  like  the  provi¬ 
dence  of  that  God  whose  gift  it  is,  and  which  watches  us 
with  an  eye  that  never  slumbers,  and  protects  us  with  a 
hand  that  is  never  weary.  What  would  become  ol  us,  if 
the  Constitution  were  trampled  in  the  dust?  No,  sir;  as 
has  been  said,  so  say  I,  with  all  my  heart  and  soul — it  any 
j  of  my  fellow-citizens  do  not  value  the  Constitution  enough 
to  defend  it,  they  are  not  worthy  of  the  blessings  it  gives 
them.  [Cheers.]  I  say  again,  let  us  stand  by  the  Cousti- 
1  tution  and  the  law,  and  as  some  one  lias  said,  as  near  as  T 
can  remember,  ‘  l  would  not  merely  protect  it  with  the  shield 
‘of  honest  Ajax,  I  would  protect  it  also  with  a  wall  of  brass; 
‘  and  when  tiiis  would  not  serve  the  purpose  of  protection, 
‘then  would  [  circle  it  with  the  living  hearts  of  my  coun- 
i ‘trymen.’  In  its  defense,  I,  we,  all  would  rally,  till  the 
last  pulse  of  life,  and  the  last  drop  of  blood  were  expended, 
to  save  the  Constitution  !” 


.  .  «r 
' '  '• 


?  , 


- 


■ 


••  -a-;" 


■,  -  > 


. 

►  » 


•  t-  S-'-Jj  -1  a  -  .'  v 

„  .  •  . 

,  :  • 

■  ■  * 

- 


'  -►  '  £  -  '  -  .  "  ; 


✓  *  1 

i 


.  / 


* 


